Can we know for certain anything about God and what he plans for us?

[Devils' Advocate]

But man cannot 'achieve' God, by his own effort, without God's response?

God's response is already there. In every thing. Always. It's like breathing in a way. You don't have to seek out oxygen. You but have to take the action of taking in a breath, and the air is there. So it is with God, seems to me. A bit more complicated than that, perhaps. But not much.

Sounbites like this are what keep me coming back here.

Awwww. Gee, shucks. You are most kind!

 

[BigJoeNobody]

They don't have to disprove, they have already shown that using strata and/or carbon dating is inaccurate, so the 45 million is already not true in their minds.

who is "They"?

So there's nothing in the Quran about the origin of Man, or age of the Earth, that can be disproved by geology and fossil evidence, for instance?

There's plenty of the origin of man, and admittedly it is similar to the Biblical story. But with a few "corrections" (keep this in context of Islamic teachings, not wanting to get into the same old I'm right you are wrong debate)

The Islamic version removes the points of time. It also doesn't point to a Geneology that might be slightly skewed due to the issue that early man probably had names (or sounds used for Identification) that mimicked their father for generations.

A Hadith (Non Quranic Teaching to sum it up) is recorded that a man came to one of the Companions (or the Prophet(PBUH), I really can't recall where it is located atm) and asked who was the first man, He responded Adam (PBUH). The man Asked was there any before Adam (PBUH) to which the Companion said Adam (PBUH). This answer and question was repeated a number of times. Some Scholars say this is because The first Man was Adam (PBUH) but his "Parent" was also a "man" but not a "man" in final form. The Quran says Allah created Adam (PBUH) (keep in mind the Literal translation of Adam in Arabic is "Man" Much as it was in Aramaic, Hebrew, etc.) from mud of dust and water. The Theory of Evolution rests on a similar notion. The first life sprung up from dust from asteroids containing certain proteins which somehow spawned life. This anomaly isn't repeatable, nor is the likelihood of it happening even at best Barely viable. We believe the thing that breathed life into that mud was Allah. and over Billions of years formed all that is on the earth, Including his most "perfect" creation, Man.

 

[wil]

who is "They"?

Literalists

 

[RJM]

One of my favorite verses:

"Search out the Lord and His might, seek His presence always."
Psalms 105:4 and I Chronicles 16:11

Thank you. Agreed. What more does anyone need?

One of mine:

Trust in the Lord with all your heart;
And lean not unto thine own understanding.
In all your ways acknowledge him,
And he shall direct your paths.
Be not wise in thine own eyes:
Fear the Lord, and depart from evil.
(Proverbs 3: 5-7)

 

[RJM]

... This anomaly isn't repeatable, nor is the likelihood of it happening even at best Barely viable. We believe the thing that breathed life into that mud was Allah. and over Billions of years formed all that is on the earth, Including his most "perfect" creation, Man ....

Total agreement, Big Man

 

[BigJoeNobody]

Literalists

Biblical Literalists? Quranic Literalists? Vedic Literalists? All Literalists?

I don't see your argument working outside of Christianity... not sure why you would choose to use such a broad meaning word when your knowledge is so limited in others' text. (To be fair I am assuming you aren't well versed in anything other than possibly the Bible based solely on your conversations of the past.)

 

[wil]

OK, anyone who believes in a short earth, a man made of mud, an ark that carried all the animals, or a talking snake.

 

[RJM]

On the other side: perhaps the study of the universe as Nature without a Spirit cause, is a bit like studying the mechanism of a motor car without knowing what that empty space -- the petrol tank -- is supposed to be there for?

 

[Devils' Advocate]

Perhaps a more apt comparison is having a fully fueled, functional car, but not knowing it needs an nitrogen/oxygen environment to work? The missing piece isn't even part of the car!

 

[RJM]

Perhaps a more apt comparison is having a fully fueled, functional car, but not knowing it needs an nitrogen/oxygen environment to work? The missing piece isn't even part of the car!

Good one -- 96℅ of the universe consisting of totally mysterious Dark Matter and Dark Energy

 

[BigJoeNobody]

OK, anyone who believes in a short earth, a man made of mud, an ark that carried all the animals, or a talking snake.

1) Short earth... yeah I find it hard to believe anyone believes this nowadays, but it's their issue, not mine.
2) A man made of Mud? did you read my explanation? Do you disagree that that scenario fits with every scientific model of evolution being presented? I simply said I don't believe LIFE spontaneously erupted, but rather was transitioned from a non-living to living state by divine influence.
3) Again, we can discuss timelines, we can discuss localities, we can discuss the concept of miracles, etc. All of these discussions could go to alleviating the issue. but you seem very happy being housed in your illusion that if you didn't see it, then it didn't happen. Sorry, Noah didn't have Instagram.
4) Again, talking snakes, a excerpt from the Bible, however is not only found there. The Quran makes statements that Magical snakes and Moses' staff (turned to snake) could talk, briefly. Again Miracles aren't something meant to impress or prove to all mankind, only to those who witness it. Whether you can see how it happened or not, they exist only outside our Physical Laws.

Maybe instead of downplaying literalists of all types, try understanding. I promise that not all "literalists" are dumb. And I wouldn't even exclude those of Biblical Literalism. I will admit that I can't understand how some people maintain their ideas without removing literal defining.

 

[wil]

I am not saying folks are dumb....just willing to ignore scientific and logical facts....I can't .

 

[RJM]

... I simply said I don't believe LIFE spontaneously erupted, but rather was transitioned from a non-living to living state by divine influence ... we can discuss timelines, we can discuss localities, we can discuss the concept of miracles, etc...

Exactly my belief. Without going back to the anthropic principle etc, again.

SPIRIT 'weaves' NATURE. Nature is contained by time. Time/space. Nature (the whole universe) is a dimension limited by time and distance. Our natural perceptions are limited. It's Plato's cave.

We're hardwired to perceive only the shadows of the true spiritual reality, which contains and surrounds and permeates time and nature. Nature could not exist independent of spirit. But spirit does exist independent of time and nature. Imo

 

[RJM]

But I'm afraid the Ark and snake stories don't work for me, either. I would have to reject a belief system which insisted I MUST accept them as true, literal fact ...

 

[Samantha Rinne]

We can know for certain that a God exists, but we cannot know for certain what God plans for the human race.

 

[BigJoeNobody]

But I'm afraid the Ark and snake stories don't work for me, either. I would have to reject a belief system which insisted I MUST accept them as true, literal fact ...

Obviously it is your prerogative to believe or disbelieve in whatever you want. That being said do you reject all miracles, or just the ones that seem outlandish? I'm honestly asking as I'm too lazy to go about looking at all the posts that popped up while I was away to try to find the answer. The way I look at it, miracles are actions outside of physical constraints. Laws of Physics/Time/Anatomy even don't apply. This is the reason they have impact on the witnesses. That being said none of us living could have seen these acts whether they were 1000s of years ago or Billions. They will never impact us unless you doubt the power Allah (God, Creator, etc) but believe in his being and you are easily awed. Yes if Allah flooded the earth it would have been a sight to see (if you were on the ship). Split the sea and dried the ground to make it walkable, and then to crash it over those who seek evil actions, Absolutely awe worthy. But I didn't see it so the impact isn't there. At this point it is simply a story, not a test of faith.

For me, the only reason I would believe such outlandish events happened is because I believe 1st off that the Creator is all Powerful and is not bound by the physics he established, and 2nd because the evidence for the rest of my faith is so strong that I believe it is correct and if the structure and text are correct then the miracles MUST have happened, even if I cannot explain how.

Also note, "Magicians" over the centuries have made all kinds of animals talk. It has never been anything but trickery as far as I know, but people believed those acts. Why would the Creator be less powerful or convincing in his display?

We can know for certain that a God exists, but we cannot know for certain what God plans for the human race.

"I do not know"
I only fix this for you to insist that we keep from removing the chance. The very nature of probability must include a absolute positive and negative. For instance in Islam it is clear. MOST Christians and Jews would agree that there is a "end game" that is absolutely apparent from their respective Holy Texts. If one truly believes their path is correct, they will usually know what the plan for Humans is At least in the Abrahamics.

 

[Dan0813]

.

 

[wil]

The miracle would be if it were written... Amazingly penguins came from Antarctica, lemurs from Madagascar, platypus from Australia, and thousands of varieties of ants and bees....all of which unbelievably I know, were teleported back to their original lands once the boat landed on mt. Sinai...

Sorry holding on to these occurances as any more than allegory or mythology is just too much for me.

 

[Thomas]

OK, anyone who believes in a short earth, a man made of mud, an ark that carried all the animals, or a talking snake.

LOL, OK. Bored of this.
Can we redefine this literalist fundamentalism and call it 'American' rather than infer it of any particular religious designation?

It is a particularly US phenomena, it rose there, it flourishes there (the 'rapture' for example is a huge American publishing industry – the NYT has simply dropped 'rapture' books from its best-seller lists because it skews the figures – and hopefully it will fizzle out there. It has of course been exported, but hopefully will not root.

These 'beliefs' arose from a right-wing think-tank's marketing a religious interpretation with a sociopolitical agenda. So your Christian right bought it. More fool they, again, something to do with being American, as the Christian right across Europe doesn't even give it any thought.

 

[Thomas]

Maybe instead of downplaying literalists of all types, try understanding. I promise that not all "literalists" are dumb. And I wouldn't even exclude those of Biblical Literalism. I will admit that I can't understand how some people maintain their ideas without removing literal defining.

Easy. Symbolism. The Biblical Symbolist sees beyond the literal to what the text is saying. The Sacred Scribe did much the same. The 'literalist' question is not so much one of scriptural interpretation, as an a priori near-horizon, 'literalist' outlook brought on by a kind of empirical rationalism which insists only the physical sciences can arbitrate questions of truth, value and meaning ... which is patently flawed.

So symbolists don't sweat it because the symbol neatly sums up a whole raft of metaphysical/philosophical speculation ... and the 'simple believer' doesn't sweat it because the symbols enable them to envision what moves the heart.

The issue with literalists is they believe in the surface but their hearts are opaque.